Constitutional issues play out in Encinitas yoga trial

Yoga has its origins in classical Hinduism and traditionally was divided into three practices: Karma yoga, Jnana yoga and Bhakti yoga.

Karma yoga dealt with action and its consequences. Thus, practitioners of Karma yoga focused on doing things like pilgrimages and other activities that would build up a reservoir of good karma.

Jnana yoga, by contrast, dealt with intellectual pursuits. In other words, this path focused on studying religious texts like the Upanishads and understanding the unity of all being.

And Bhakti yoga, as described in the Bhagavad Gita, is predicated on love and devotion to God.

What you do is not as important as how you do it. Common to all three types of yoga is the overriding goal of Hinduism: moksha, or the release from the cycle of death and rebirth. The historically religious undertones inherent in yoga are seemingly obvious, but Westerners have, to a certain extent, wrestled with — and continue to wrestle with — the question of whether belief and practice can successfully be separated.

Given the dispute in Encinitas over the propriety of offering yoga classes in public schools, this debate takes on added poignancy and significance. But I am not an expert in Hinduism and I will therefore not attempt to define yoga or religion. Rather, as a lawyer, my focus will be on whether the Encinitas Union School District is attempting to “establish” a religion. Fortunately for us, the U.S. Supreme Court, in the seminal case of Lemon vs. Kurtzman, has given us a three-part test for determining when activity by a government constitutes an establishment of religion. The activity in question must be secular; it must not have the effect of advancing or inhibiting religion; and the activity must not result in excessive government entanglement with religion.

In the case of Encinitas, the first question will inevitably be about yoga as a religion and whether the purpose of offering it has a secular — meaning, nonreligious — purpose. Central to this inquiry will be the question of whether the historically religious beliefs noted above can indeed be segregated from the mere practice of yoga. If the class is billed as “physical education” and students are not forced to partake, then it seems that the purpose behind these classes (relaxation and physical fitness) will be deemed secular and thus will pass constitutional muster. If, on the other hand, there is some underlying spiritual component to the classes, further participation in the classes will likely be blocked.

The next question covers the effect of the classes. In other words, does offering yoga advance or inhibit a religion? It seems clear that this is not about the inhibition of religion, so the crux of the question revolves around whether the Encinitas Union School District is propagating or promoting yoga as a religion. Those who argue that the belief and practice of yoga are inextricably linked will argue that the answer is obvious: yes. By contrast, if it can be shown that this is just about physical activity totally bereft of religious indoctrination, then perhaps San Diego Superior Court Judge John Meyer will allow the practice to proceed.

Finally, Judge Meyer will have to determine the extent to which this dispute results in excessive entanglement with religion. Specifically, the concern is that this program will entangle and embroil the state in the details of school administration. That is, how often will this program have to be reviewed or monitored by the state to ensure that it really is maintaining its religious neutrality? “Unlike a book,” the court said in the Lemon case, “a teacher cannot be inspected once so as to determine the extent and intent of his or her personal beliefs and subjective acceptance of the limitations imposed by the First Amendment.”

If the parents opposed to yoga as a public school offering can demonstrate that the religious aspects of yoga cannot reasonably be segregated from the physical components, they stand a good chance of also showing that, ipso facto, the school district is indeed advancing a religion. From here, establishing excessive government entanglement in religion will be straightforward.

This trial is going to be difficult and emotional, touching on issues of identity, religion and the proper role of the state in adjudicating these intensely personal matters. However it unfolds, we should all be excited to watch these live constitutional issues play out right here in our own backyard.

If this results in greater civic education and awareness of the Constitution, the trial will have been worth the trouble, whatever the final outcome.

Rudolph is an attorney with offices in La Jolla and Washington, D.C., who specializes in international law, foreign relations law, international trade law, international business transactions law and international human rights law.